Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 632 posts

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#371

Post by sshumaker »

JimboOmega wrote: post #114

My experience has been that jumping from employee to any level of executive is the absolute hardest step, at least for me. I think once you are a team lead and have some number of direct reports, you can then start jumping your way up that ladder. But going from 0 to 5 direct reports has often seemed impossible. I'd be open to tips on how to do it.

A manager isn't an executive. In addition to new skills, there are also mental shifts necessary at various stages in your career, as you climb to increasing levels of leadership.

You can see this on the IC track as well for top-tier tech companies - there is a step-function difference in mindset at certain levels.

Jumping from IC to line manager, as you suggest, is one; you need to recognize you are no longer shipping code but are shipping your team - they are your output, and their performance is how you are measured.

At director it switches again, you are responsible not precisely for the people but for your organization as a whole. There is an adage that you know you're a director after your first re-org and are moving people's names around as cells on a spreadsheet.

It changes again at VP, as an executive of the company you are responsible and accountable for an entire function. Excuses cease to matter, even external forces - you should have accounted for them. You are optimizing for the company's overall future and not your org or people.

This is a vastly simplified explanation, obviously.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#372

Post by roenxi »

vvanders wrote: post #264
sidlls wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a different (admittedly controversial) take, having been on the "tech ladder" for some time now (as a Senior SWE and Lead Engineer): most individual contributors overestimate how much value they actually provide, especially in the Bay Area. That isn't to say we're not under-appreciated and under-compensated (we are both). But realistically much of the time work we do is easily done by literally thousands of ot…

Everything you listed is just a multiplier on if the technology actually works . If you have a sucky multiplier of course your product won't do well but if it isn't technically executed right you still have a zero.

But that argument goes all the way down the value chain. You'll end up with something like food production > transport > tech. The chain can be as long as you feel too.

It is a radical proposition that a farm day laborer adds more value than an elite tech worker because 'the system would stop without food'.

The value add is controlled by the person who decides what "value add" is. That is the executive, original product designers and customers (who may well be represented by marketing in some businesses, I dunno).

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#373

Post by defined »

koolba wrote: post #115
krat0sprakhar wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For someone who recently graduated and quite clueless about financial planning, do you have some resources to get started?

The usual generic financial advice I give is: - Maximize every retirement vehicle offered to you (max 401k, HSA, etc). - Pretend that any money you sock away for retirement doesn't exist. This is best done with automated withdrawals so you never even consider it money in your checking account. - Learn to cook. This doesn't actually save much money at the individual level but is huge for families. - Set up separate ac…

> - Never buy a new car. They're for chumps.

> - Never lease a new car. That's for the biggest chumps.

Disagree on the leasing if you have your own company. The lease payments are all interest and deductible from your income. Sure, you don't end up with a car but if you do a 36 month lease, your new car is under warranty the whole time.

I've seen too many people suffer from the false economy of used cars. If you are lucky (or a skilled mechanic), you can benefit, but if not, the repair expenses and vehicle breakdowns become a large drain.

I agree that financing a new car is just a depreciation hole, but you need your wits to avoid being screwed over when getting a used car. You just never know what's been done to it.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#374

Post by dkns »

smileysteve wrote: post #308
koolba wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The usual generic financial advice I give is: - Maximize every retirement vehicle offered to you (max 401k, HSA, etc). - Pretend that any money you sock away for retirement doesn't exist. This is best done with automated withdrawals so you never even consider it money in your checking account. - Learn to cook. This doesn't actually save much money at the individual level but is huge for families. - Set up separate ac…

> - Learn to cook. This doesn't actually save much money at the individual level but is huge for families. I'd say it can save a ton of money at the individual level and is likely much healthier, and often time as well (probably biased because I can passively cook because I understand the science of cooking) My example meal that is paleo friendly is grilled chicken breast and frozen vegetables; my dinners cost ~ $3/d…

Any recommended reading on passive cooking? Sounds like something that would be really useful for me.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#375

Post by Torwald »

krat0sprakhar wrote: post #95
koolba wrote: post #51

Regardless of which path you'd like to go down, learn some basic financial planning, frugality, and learn to live like a miser. It'll pay dividends, both figuratively and literally. Regarding the executive path, or more generally any management role, learn early on if it's for you. If you're the type that gets caught up in human interest stories, considers it inhumane to fire low performers, or generally believes in…

For someone who recently graduated and quite clueless about financial planning, do you have some resources to get started?

The guy at https://www.youneedabudget.com explained this stuff very well to me. But this was years ago, when his program was a bunch of emails. You may have to just check out the free trial and see if it is helpful to you.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#376

Post by karthikb »

jeffdavis wrote: post #369
ChuckMcM wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly right. I've been in all three roles and all three are essential to success. I can also relate to the notion that the engineers do all the work, which was a sentiment I shared early in my career before I understood the kinds of problems executives and founders had to solve. I cringe when I hear an executive say "How hard can it be? Get some bright bulbs in here and have code up a solution that doesn't…

You don't really understand the value of a role until you see someone great for the role. This adds to a lot of the bad feelings. Some people are great at marketing, but if you work for someone mediocre then it's easy to see how you will think they are worthless.

On the flipside, you don't know if someone's great until you have seen someone mediocre. They may be preventing all sorts of fires, but because you don't even know those fires could exist...

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#377

Post by calebm »

reuven wrote: post #91

How about freelancing? I've been doing that since 1995 -- and my income and happiness have never been higher. Pros: - Work on what you like, with the people you like - Potentially very high salary, definitely more than you would get as an employee - Want to work on side projects (e.g., software, books, and courses)? Go for it, and benefit from multiple income streams. Cons: - You're running a business. That requires…

I actually look at the "employee" strategy as very similar to freelancing. As an employee, I see myself as a single-person business, and the companies that I work for are my customers. Just like a freelancer, I choose what companies I want to work for (though I only work for one company at a time).

One of the perceived downsides of being an employee is that you can't "be your own boss", but I don't think it's very different for an employee to be accountable to his/her employer than for a founder to be accountable to his/her customers or a freelancer to be accountable to his/her clients.

The only way to truly "be your own boss" is to become wealthy enough that you don't need to be accountable to anyone (for financial well-being).

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#378

Post by kartan »

sidlls wrote: post #252
nichochar wrote: post #42

This is rather true in practice, but I find it tremendously depressing. I have found that the executive path is actually the one that most of the scumbags take, it is the one that attracts the most people, and those people are usually not likable, they're salespeople that sell themselves all day. The third group, the one that actually creates value, is accurately represented as not as successful both in terms of mone…

I have a different (admittedly controversial) take, having been on the "tech ladder" for some time now (as a Senior SWE and Lead Engineer): most individual contributors overestimate how much value they actually provide, especially in the Bay Area. That isn't to say we're not under-appreciated and under-compensated (we are both). But realistically much of the time work we do is easily done by literally thousands of ot…

> The same just isn't true of product development, sales and marketing. Any one of those three teams, staffed well, will account for well more than the value of the entire engineering organization.

Why is it not true for them? Sales are not magic, it is a profession that can be learned. I have seen a lot of companies stating how important is sales, and how unique they are. It can't be true for all companies. It is like everyone thinking that they are above average, it is just not possible.

If your product is software, literally it is impossible that sales add more value than the engineering organization that builds the product. Without engineering organization, you don't have anything to sell. Without sales and marketing, you will also have a hard time. It is collaboration what brings success.

> There's too much focus by developers on shallow things, like fad-following the latest frameworks, on pseudo-intellectualism or technology-purism

This is usually a problem with recruiting. You get what you pay for. If your interviews are about technical expertise and you ignore basic persona-values evaluation and fit to build valuable features, you get that. And it jeopardizes the viability of a company. You need some really good experts, but you don't need everyone to be one.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#379

Post by Retric »

roenxi wrote: post #372
vvanders wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you listed is just a multiplier on if the technology actually works . If you have a sucky multiplier of course your product won't do well but if it isn't technically executed right you still have a zero.

But that argument goes all the way down the value chain. You'll end up with something like food production > transport > tech. The chain can be as long as you feel too. It is a radical proposition that a farm day laborer adds more value than an elite tech worker because 'the system would stop without food'. The value add is controlled by the person who decides what "value add" is. That is the executive, original prod…

Food surplus comes from mass production not farm hands. The guy who handles 20,000+ acres of crop is more productive than the average dev and makes more money.

http://www.cornandsoybeandigest.com/are-1000-acres-part-time... “One of the most difficult factors for many 1,100-acre or less farmers to accept is that, unless they have livestock, they're probably underemployed. Thirty years ago, 1,000 acres was enough to support Dad, me and three hired men. ... As one industry sage puts it, “It's not the 1,000-acre farmer that needs to worry. They can still support themselves with off-farm income. The guy who needs to worry is the 3,000- to 5,000-acre farmer who knows he needs to reach 10,000 acres if he wants to stay in business.

Re: Three Paths in the Tech Industry: Founder, Executive, or Employee

#380

Post by charlesdm »

hahamrfunnyguy wrote: post #353
sidlls wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a different (admittedly controversial) take, having been on the "tech ladder" for some time now (as a Senior SWE and Lead Engineer): most individual contributors overestimate how much value they actually provide, especially in the Bay Area. That isn't to say we're not under-appreciated and under-compensated (we are both). But realistically much of the time work we do is easily done by literally thousands of ot…

As a manager I disagree. The right people are difficult to come by. Sure an engineer can be replaced - but in how many weeks or months, and what about the knowledge leaving the company?

Isn't this just also dependent on pay?

Let's take a ridiculous example, but if someone were to offer me, say, $1m (a year) to work on a specific key niche project (i.e. something that fits within my skill set and where I could add tremendous value) then I would happily move wherever around the world.

Pay more -> you'll probably get a (significantly) higher amount of qualified applicants?

Post reply on HN